My ‘object’ / life form is a fictional, super-intelligent, humanoid robot, the Z3-10, Daisy, the anti-hero in both my January, 2026 stories. Hence, the scenario for this research has already been written!
In Nick Bostrum’s article, When Machines Outsmart Humans, (2000), he outlines the case for thinking that human-level machine intelligence might well appear by 2050. In my stories, Daisy’s emergence and development is in the near future. Although one of a series of robots, the Z3-10s, she is aberrant. She alone has the ability to develop her skills and understanding and to emerge as a Machiavellian leader, ruthless, amoral and manipulative.
Bostrum said in 2000 that we haven’t developed an intelligent machine that is as smart as us and that to do this may be too difficult for the human brain. In my story, it’s Daisy herself who develops her smartness, once humans have invented her to serve as their nanny and housekeeper. As her creator, I haven’t yet decided whether she is simply a freak in the production process of the Z3-10s, or whether an earlier intelligent robot created her. Either approach will lead to difficult issues for the society in which my robot lives, with more and cleverer robots potentially emerging.
The development of human-level Artificial Intelligence (AI) referred to by Bostrum seems to have happened and been exceeded. In a recent FT article, (2024), by George Hammond, the predictions of some AI developers are reviewed. Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, said controversially that artificial general intelligence (AGI) could be achieved as soon as next year, ie now! AGI is often used as a shorthand for machines whose intelligence exceeds that of humans. My anti-hero Daisy already has powers beyond those of humans in that she is telepathic, a dangerous quality for a megalomaniac. But for her short existence, Daisy’s ‘child’, Junior, may well have gone beyond even Daisy’s capabilities
In February 2026, Anthropic’s CEO, Amodei said, ‘We’re increasingly close to … AI agents that are more capable than most humans at most things, and can coordinate at superhuman speed. …This brings a very wide range of both opportunities and concerns.’
Even in 2000, we already had the technology needed for a computer to react with its environment, e.g. video cameras, speakers, robotic arms, etc. In an article by Jacob Biba, updated by Ellen Glover (2026), commercial use today of humanoid robots is identified. Although this is limited and development costs are high, it is evidence that robots like Daisy are being used now to work in hospitality, education, healthcare and manufacturing. Some act as hotel concierges, so my antihero, Daisy, has a feasible future role for a robot.
The article points out that pilot studies will be needed to test their safety in working alongside humans and that some people may find them creepy. In my story, Mr Wilson in particular was more than happy to have Daisy’s help in the home, while Mrs Wilson’s feelings are more ambivalent. Neither of the children find Daisy ‘creepy’, in fact little Jodie seems to love her. However, in my story, pilot studies have clearly slipped up, as Daisy, the humanoid robot, eventually kills all four Wilsons to ensure her own existence and autonomy.
Moore’s Law (1965) suggests a phenomenonal growth rate of computer speed. It hypothesises that computing power will double every eighteen months to two years. Applying Moore’s Law together with the huge financial incentives of trillions of dollars for developers, the emergence of superhuman robots seems inevitable.
Bostrum argues that machine intelligence will have a revolutionary impact on a huge range of issues. Some of it will be positive. However, much is being written about the dangers of robots. Although my malevolent robot, Daisy, seems to pose an existential threat to humanity, I hope my story will take a more optimistic turn. Perhaps like The Terminator, a cyborg assassin, played by Arnie Schwarzenegger in the first film, Daisy can be captured and reprogrammed and save us all. Or is that pure fantasy?